↓ Skip to main content

A population study comparing screening performance of prototypes for depression and anxiety with standard scales

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A population study comparing screening performance of prototypes for depression and anxiety with standard scales
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-11-154
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helen Christensen, Philip J Batterham, Janie Busby Grant, Kathleen M Griffiths, Andrew J Mackinnon

Abstract

Screening instruments for mental disorders need to be short, engaging, and valid. Current screening instruments are usually questionnaire-based and may be opaque to the user. A prototype approach where individuals identify with a description of an individual with typical symptoms of depression, anxiety, social phobia or panic may be a shorter, faster and more acceptable method for screening. The aim of the study was to evaluate the accuracy of four new prototype screeners for predicting depression and anxiety disorders and to compare their performance with existing scales.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 11%
Student > Master 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 15 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 17%
Social Sciences 5 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 14 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 December 2011.
All research outputs
#17,229,998
of 21,329,785 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,628
of 1,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,214
of 248,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#77
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,329,785 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,898 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 248,467 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.